France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

February 18, 2010 -

Lawmakers in France have approved the draft of a law that would enable ISP-level Internet filtering.

Dubbed the Loppsi II bill, the measure passed a National Assembly vote in a count of 312 to 214 reports the Good Gear Guide. The bill will next be read in the Senate, which could be its final reading if no amendments are introduced, as the government has pinned an “urgent” tag on the bill.

Among the bill’s Internet measures are provisions to make online identity theft a crime and allow police to tap Net connections, in addition to allowing authorities to order ISPs to filter Internet connections to remove child pornography materials.

Critics of the bill are concerned that any Internet filtering could lead to more widespread government induced censorship online.

Other parts of the bill deal with “boosting the amount the police spend on ‘security,’ multiplying penalties for counterfeiting checks or credit cards, increasing use of CCTV cameras, extending access to the police national DNA database and authorizing the seizure of vehicles driven without a license.”

It’s estimated that the filtering technology would cost France €140 million (approximately $190.0 million U.S.)and would be “largely ineffective” against the distribution of child pornography, which experts say is done via P2P networks.

Posted in

Comments

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

That's actually not that bad. In Germany, there's plans to regulate the internet as if it was public TV, including making access providers and hosters liable for any content they serve, mandatory age ratings, limited "broadcast" time for content according to age ratings (No kidding - pages with 16+ rated content would have to go offline from 6am to 10pm) and blocking access to foreign content that doesn't comply with this (which given the ridiculousness of all this is basically "blocking access to foreign content").

The law to block access to child pornography was signed into law on the 17th, so we're still ahead of the French. (Although the government promised not to apply it.) Meanwhile, the hearing about the petition to stop this law (a petition which was started as soon as the plans for this law were made public) will be on the 22nd, after the bill was debated, voted on, passed and signed into law and there's nothing that can be done about it - go democracy.

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

 I'm sorry but I can't stand your arguement. "that's actually not that bad, [because it's worse in germany". No.

This is bad. This is wrong. Censorship is absolutely unacceptable. And the fact that it's worse in Germany does NOT make this "not that bad". That's the equivalent of saying raping 10 children "is not that bad" because you could have raped 15.

No. I'm sorry but no. 

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

Wasn't my intention to say that.

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

It seems that every day, Western Civilization is going full-circle back to authoritative oppression.  Hopefully, the next dominant civilization will learn from our mistakes.

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

Hehe, nice bit of humor there.

 

Politicians learning from past mistakes, that's a good one.

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

Yeah...censorship is the wrong idea.  Yes, child porn is bad.  So don't censor it, and instead track the bastards actually doing it with their IP addresses.  Kill it at the source, and you don't act like a dick by proposing internet filters.

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

Actually those costs are probably just for state administration of the censorship and some offsets for ISP's, the costs of actual filter boxes etc for the numbers of users in France would be well in excess of that number.

Either which way, sounds like it's time for another French revolution imo.  I'm pretty sure the guilloitines could be dusted off and put back in to working order.  Viva la revolution, viva la France!!

ps.  I'm Australian, so I have a vested interest in not seeing a western democracy implementing censorship which might convince our peabrained communications minister that somehow it's okay because someone else has done it...

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

"It’s estimated that the filtering technology would cost France €140 million (approximately $190.0 million U.S.)and would be “largely ineffective” against the distribution of child pornography, which experts say is done via P2P networks."

Largely ineffective? Wow, just pathetic for the amount france is spending.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: France One Step Closer to Net Filtering

Yes, because state censorship always works so well.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician